Definitely not the best list I've seen. Petrecki, IMO, is ranked a little too high, I'd put him at maybe seventh. Hoeffel caught me by surprise, I didn't even have him on my radar screen. Same with Averin, and Lund I had at about twenty. Other than that, well not bad.
RLR Top 10 for 2007
- Thread starter RangerBoy
- Start date
This is classic. For a guy who wants people to think he is a talent evaluator, you aren't even aware of the best pro prospect from the state right next door to you? It's not like Hoeffel just appeared on the radar. Unlike Forney, people have been well aware of Hoeffel well before his draft year. For example, Hoeffel turned down the USA program before last season and he lit it up on a greater level than Forney last year in HS. This isn't exactly an unknown quantity around USA hockey and scouting circles.
Better get educated if you are gonna talk like a scout like you always seem to do.
that is surprising. hoeffel is a known commodity, but at 5 overall i think is a stretch. i cant believe woodlief has him higher then van reimsdyk, and even o'brien right now. i really want to see him play with the ntdp before theres talk of him going in the top 10. i dont think hoeffel is this years forney, hes basically a sure bet to go in the first round, especially if he continues to play with jimmy hayes, bc the 2 together are dominant. it would have been nice to lock bruneteau up with the ntdp too, to keep the line together. pat white is this years forney. woodlief has a love affair with him, and is his sleeper minny hs player to go in the first. forney wasnt going to be a top 10 pick no matter how much woodlief wanted him to be. he has too many injury problems for a kid only playing minny hs, late first would have probably been his ceiling even if he stayed injury free and played with the usa at the u-18 tourney.
X-SHARKIE
Registered User
This is classic. For a guy who wants people to think he is a talent evaluator, you aren't even aware of the best pro prospect from the state right next door to you? It's not like Hoeffel just appeared on the radar. Unlike Forney, people have been well aware of Hoeffel well before his draft year. For example, Hoeffel turned down the USA program before last season and he lit it up on a greater level than Forney last year in HS. This isn't exactly an unknown quantity around USA hockey and scouting circles.
Better get educated if you are gonna talk like a scout like you always seem to do.
Buddy, relax, I don't see much Minnesota High School at all (it's a good five hour drive from Janesville Wisconsin) except for at the exposure camps - which I haven't seen Hoeffel at before.....If you want to talk about someone else like White, Marvin, Fischer, or someone not as hyped like Nick Canzanello then let's talk...but should I be shunned for not seeing one player yet?
I think you took the way I said "Interesting, whose Hoeffel? Never seen him play" wrong because I have heard of Hoeffel, but I have never seen him play and I was asking for more about him because this is the first time i've heard him labeled as a top five prospect.
Just relax and don't jump all over me for something as small as that.
And Phaneuf..
The top four is good, but Backlund, and maybe some other guys(Van Riemsdyk, Sutter, Katic), should be on the list instead of guys like Skokan, Hoeffel and Lund. I mean, Katic had almost twice as much points than Skokan this past season, and Sarnia was arguably a worse team than Rimouski... I know points isn't all, but Katic is probably the 2nd best defenseman in this draft(I believe he'll pass Petrecki next year), with a Coffey-esque offensive game.
This is classic. For a guy who wants people to think he is a talent evaluator, you aren't even aware of the best pro prospect from the state right next door to you? It's not like Hoeffel just appeared on the radar. Unlike Forney, people have been well aware of Hoeffel well before his draft year. For example, Hoeffel turned down the USA program before last season and he lit it up on a greater level than Forney last year in HS. This isn't exactly an unknown quantity around USA hockey and scouting circles.
Better get educated if you are gonna talk like a scout like you always seem to do.
this is wrong,he knows his players and has a good handle on all the different skill sets it takes for a guy to succeed and how he stacks up next to other guys relative to those skills. No-one can see all the players,i'd wager most here don't see 90% of all the players out there any more then 7-8 times until they actually,if ever,get to the nhl.If you're lucky you are in a area that has a top shelf junior or university league and you get to take in a lot of games on the telly or at the rinks and that still won't help you with players overseas and vice versa for posters from europe.A lot of guys i would guess rely for the most part on prospect publications for the best part of their "evaluation"
But he's one of the better guys for really being on top of what's happening all over and you can tell he really get's to see and watches the guys available to see in his zone.He's into it and it shows.
X-Sharkie is truly a reliable, honest and knowledgeable source for the scouting industry. I find his analysis often bang-on and accurate.
The previous pot-shot at him was uncalled for and should be regarded as b.s. IMO.
Keep up the good work X-Sharkie!
The previous pot-shot at him was uncalled for and should be regarded as b.s. IMO.
Keep up the good work X-Sharkie!
If they look like they did this year...Kane will be a fair bit older than the average London player. Kane would have a bigger challenge in the NCAAs as he'd be easily the youngest player on either Michigan or BU. The O should give him easier points.
You have to admit though..a statement like 'whose Hoeffel? probally similar to their love fest for Forney early on last year' does not inspire confidence in his ability to judge talent.
Phaneuf wasn't regarded as a one of the best D prospects for decades in his draft year like Bouwmeester, EJ, Pitkanen or JJ were. Of course a year later he was.
X-SHARKIE
Registered User
I admit, I should've been more thorough, i've heard of Hoeffel, as McKeen's has him in the 1st round. But top ten? Top five? this is the first time i've seen or heard of it and Redline has a reputation to overrate players early, and it looked to me a bit like their love fest for Forney early in the year.... but don't take it as an inability to judge talent because quite frankly, I never seen Hoeffel play.
My bad for dissing the high ranking if he truley deserves it.
Thanks everyone for sticking up for me, that was cool of you guys!
I enjoy X-Sharkie's posts as much as any other person's on the board, and his track record is AT LEAST as good as people who get paid for their opinions. I took his "Who's Hoeffel" to be commentary, not ignorance.
As far as overrating players early, ALL lists go up and down. You never know how a young player will develop over an off season as he is still growing. With later viewings, flaws are exposed and potential is noticed. Redline doesn't soften their expectations by being wishy-washy about whether they like someone that others don't. As the draft approaches, their lists improve as do the lists of everyone else's.
I don't take seriously any analyst whose list stays the same in the 9 months before the draft. Some posters here latch onto a player that is high on lists early, and never change their opinions while that player's stock (rightfully) drops.
X-SHARKIE
Registered User
MikeC
Registered User
Kane is just 18......a bit older???? junior hockey is between 16 and 20
X-Sharkie is doing a great job...i subscribed to the iss pro and the redline pro and trust me...this guy is good and very interesting...
so before judging someone... please think, because you really dont help your case
yep...if ages holds to what it was last year on the team, only 11 of 29 players on London will be older than Kane. As a result, he will be an older member of the team.
For either Michigan or BU, Pat Kane will be easily the youngest member of the team and usually the youngest player taking the ice in a game. This is the way Pat Kane has structured his play during his recent seasons...excelling against older competition.
The OHL would be a departure as its against a younger players...but I agree with Sharkie, it should result in easier points. Perhaps the NCAA is riskier...but an excellent test for the next level.
Your draft guide last year proved you are worth sticking up for.
A great read.
People have said you are biased towards NCAA guys, but it is only natural to favor players you see more. Keep up the great work.
Fixed.
EDIT: Just to clarify so this doesn't start a flame war with future posters, I meant the OHL has better players than the USHL. That is NOT in question. Whether the CHL has better players than the NCAA or not...I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole (or, the size of Tim Hunter's nose.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Daddy
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2005
- 841
- 0
Actually, he would be average age for the CHL as he turns 18 later this year. And while you are right about him being one of the youngest in the NCAA, playing with and against older guys doesn't necessarily mean he will develop any faster than than any other top prospect.
But damn, when will he make his decision?
Regarding Hoeffel, I've read that he is similar in style to Kyle Okposo. However, he has issues with consistancy which is a strength of Okposo's. I'm very curious to see how he does with the NTDP U18 team this year. He should be one of the leaders on a deep team. Top five is certainly higher than I've seen him listed before though.
Use any excuse you want but the fact is he isn't just flying on the radar now. Your average NCAA hockey fan from the Midwest could easily tell you who Mike Hoeffel is even if they have never seen him play. If a kid is good enough to merit a roster spot offer from the USA team a year ago, there should be no valid excuse for a truly educated talent watcher in this part of the USA to not know who he is.
Considering the level of talent coming out of Minnesota, I would think some pseudo scout would be more knowledgeable on those types of players. Then again, I am talking to the same poster who didn't even know Sam Gagner made his decision to play in the OHL well over two months ago. But I guess since guys like Hoeffel haven’t yet been widely published by the Red Lines of the world, it makes your “job” tougher since you simply take a cue from their hard work.
The problem with people who post on here and make these mock drafts and talk like they think they are some scout is they don't truly have the breadth of knowledge it takes to judge the entire landscape. People on here may kiss butt to certain posters over the time and effort that is put into such things but a lot of the work I have seen is simply an incestuous effort in which people simply rip off the work of real scouts or compile the works of a variety of different publications and then pass it off as something original. If that is what garners praise from the masses on this board, I’d say that is pretty feeble.
Last edited:
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
I don't subscribe to any of the major publications, and I live in Arizona. I'll take whatever info I can get. If X wants to compile info from Redline, McKeen's, ect. and a then post it as his own, I'm fine with that. It's easy and cheap for me. Does that make me selfish? Probably. Do I care? Absolutely not.
Oh, and as for Hoeffel, what can you tell us about him? You seem to know alot about the kid, so how about sharing a bit? I'm curious. Thanks.
i heard that grant has looked great at seadogs camp alot faster and seems to have put on some size.he also played for the under17 canadian team that won gold this summer.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
X-Sharkie seems knowledgable about NCAA prospects. However, there have been approximately five occasions when, after he pontificated about the nuances of a particular CHL or even Canadian midget player's game, I posted the question: when and where had he seen this player play? The only response I ever got was a private message stating I was attacking him personally.
The point is: "scouting reports" based on the compilations of other first hand sources are fine, I just wish more people on this board would disclose them as such.
Can I assume, then, that you have never seen a live OHL game or a live bantam/midget game in Ontario, and don't expect to see one in the foreseeable future? If so, I will keep that in mind when I read your scouting reports and rankings of such players.
No disrespect, but if a viable evaluation could be made from videotape, then NHL scouts would be watching the OHL Action Pack on Rogers every night, rather than sitting in rinks. Not that video scouting is useless - it's better than nothing I guess.
